One more reason to hate UNC

[Mime-Is-Money]

They did exist for decades, the South grieved them over and over with result. That’s why secession was their final recourse, it wasn’t their first choice.

It was not ALL about slavery, that simply helps you justify the US actions. It’s what simple minded people accept actions they know are wrong, the ends justify the means.

The North would’ve took up arms if slavery wasn’t involved.

The tariffs in question, which weren't between the states, rather on goods imported to the US, did exist for decades, and were slowly being reduced to satisfy the South. When the war started tarriffs were at a ~ 25 year low due to the efforts of Southern congressmen chipping away at them (see: Nullification Crisis - when one state deemed tariffs unconstitutional, rather than seceding). And the South obviously wasn't opposed to the idea of implementing tariffs since they levied a 15% tax on any goods imported into the CSA, including those produced in the USA.

And yes, the Great/Missouri Compromises in the first half of the 1800s, to which I was referring, solely addressed slavery.

I'm not saying the North fought this war to end slavery, I'm saying the South seceded primarily because of, then fought to maintain, slavery. No slavery, no civil war. I know it, you know it, leaders of the CSA said it. It's the truth whether you want to mask it behind the weak excuse of tariffs or not.

 

[RonEJones]

So if I don't like a statue can I just rip it down?

Only if you claim racism, someone being a nazi or Donald Trump collusion with Russia.

 

[Bill Derington]

The tariffs in question, which weren't between the states, rather on goods imported to the US, did exist for decades, and were slowly being reduced to satisfy the South. When the war started tarriffs were at a ~ 25 year low due to the efforts of Southern congressmen chipping away at them (see: Nullification Crisis - when one state deemed tariffs unconstitutional, rather than seceding). And the South obviously wasn't opposed to the idea of implementing tariffs since they levied a 15% tax on any goods imported into the CSA, including those produced in the USA.

And yes, the Great/Missouri Compromises in the first half of the 1800s, to which I was referring, solely addressed slavery.

I'm not saying the North fought this war to end slavery, I'm saying the South seceded primarily because of, then fought to maintain, slavery. No slavery, no civil war. I know it, you know it, leaders of the CSA said it. It's the truth whether you want to mask it behind the weak excuse of tariffs or not.

They fought to maintain their Freedom, in an agreement every state ratified with the full knowledge that any of them could leave, for whatever reason.
That is why the civil war was fought, it would’ve never happened if the North had just let them leave, now would it?
Slavery was an issue, but it wasn’t the only issue.
Did Virginia, TN, NC and Ark secede because of slavery, or because the US Govt was acting tyrannical? They didn’t secede until after the call to raise an Army.
The dedication speech is nonsense, it no more has any bearing on that statue as the man on the moon. It was one mans opinion. The statue was to honor confederate foot soldiers that’s it.

The slavery issue was pushed to justify the North’s actions, because you, me, and every historian knows it was wrong. It wasn’t the intention of the Union originally. The states are sovereign entities joined in a pact, but not bound.
It’s simple minded to think slavery was the only issue at hand, although it was a BIG issue.

 

[MegaBlue05]

We're No.2!!

Go losing team!!

And F the "lost cause" narrative that was taught all through the south. That's just what the losers want other losers to think.

 

[Mime-Is-Money]

They fought to maintain their Freedom, in an agreement every state ratified with the full knowledge that any of them could leave, for whatever reason.

Yes, they fought to maintain their "freedom" to continue slavery.

For the 80th time, no one has questioned the legality of the South's secesion, rather WHY they seceded, which was in hopes to preserve slavery.

That is why the civil war was fought, it would’ve never happened if the North had just let them leave, now would it?
Slavery was an issue, but it wasn’t the only issue.
Did Virginia, TN, NC and Ark secede because of slavery, or because the US Govt was acting tyrannical? They didn’t secede until after the call to raise an Army.

The South wouldn't have seceded if slavery wasn't present. This whole time I said "slavery is the overarching issue" causing the South to secede and to take up arms. There were a couple of other reasons that the South tried to throw in there, but the #1, predominant reason was slavery.

VA, TN, NC, and AR joined the CSA which was formed to protect slavery and slaveholdings states. That motive is mentioned ordinance of secession for VA. AR was threatened with economic boycotts by neighboring states, most notably Texas. NC deligates were meeting to discuss secession for months prior to the outbreak of war.

The timing of secession is irrelevant in this discussion. If the reason for secession was the timing of the war, why did only slave states secede? And the only battle that had taken place prior to VA, NC, and AR joining the CSA was Fort Sumter where the Confederates attacked and defeated the Union stronghold of Charleston. Tyranny!

The dedication speech is nonsense, it no more has any bearing on that statue as the man on the moon. It was one mans opinion. The statue was to honor confederate foot soldiers that’s it.

No, that's not it. First, the dedication speech encompasses the very impetus for the wave of Confederate monuments erected in the early 1900's - the rise of the Jim Crow South and the second coming of the Klan. These memorials honoring the cause of the Confederacy were installed on the grounds of court houses, town halls, and state universities, other public spaces to send a message.

The statue in question could have honored soldiers for both the Union and Confederacy, as 1 in 4 of North Carolinians that died in the war did so fighting for the North, if those who authorized wanted to commemorate the state's fallen.

It’s simple minded to think slavery was the only issue at hand, although it was a BIG issue.

Jesus. Herald. Tap Dancing. Christ - no is saying it was the 'only' issue at hand. Yes, it was a BIG issue. It was, by far, the BIGGEST issue. No slavery, no war. It's not that hard to understand.

 

[Bill Derington]

Yes, they fought to maintain their "freedom" to continue slavery.

For the 80th time, no one has questioned the legality of the South's secesion, rather WHY they seceded, which was in hopes to preserve slavery.



The South wouldn't have seceded if slavery wasn't present. This whole time I said "slavery is the overarching issue" causing the South to secede and to take up arms. There were a couple of other reasons that the South tried to throw in there, but the #1, predominant reason was slavery.

VA, TN, NC, and AR joined the CSA which was formed to protect slavery and slaveholdings states. That motive is mentioned ordinance of secession for VA. AR was threatened with economic boycotts by neighboring states, most notably Texas. NC deligates were meeting to discuss secession for months prior to the outbreak of war.

The timing of secession is irrelevant in this discussion. If the reason for secession was the timing of the war, why did only slave states secede? And the only battle that had taken place prior to VA, NC, and AR joining the CSA was Fort Sumter where the Confederates attacked and defeated the Union stronghold of Charleston. Tyranny!



No, that's not it. First, the dedication speech encompasses the very impetus for the wave of Confederate monuments erected in the early 1900's - the rise of the Jim Crow South and the second coming of the Klan. These memorials honoring the cause of the Confederacy were installed on the grounds of court houses, town halls, and state universities, other public spaces to send a message.

The statue in question could have honored soldiers for both the Union and Confederacy, as 1 in 4 of North Carolinians that died in the war did so fighting for the North, if those who authorized wanted to commemorate the state's fallen.



Jesus. Herald. Tap Dancing. Christ - no is saying it was the 'only' issue at hand. Yes, it was a BIG issue. It was, by far, the BIGGEST issue. No slavery, no war. It's not that hard to understand.

They fought to maintain their right to leave the US. That is why the Civil war was fought.

They don’t leave, the North doesn’t form an Army. You say they seceded to maintain slavery, yet it wasn’t about to end in the US prior to secession.

A civil war at that time wouldn’t have happened, but it’s impossible to say one never would’ve happened. We’re damn near in one now.

Good lord, the statue could’ve been a unicorn too, but it isn’t. It’s a monument honoring confederate soldiers.
It’s ignorant to say these monuments built in in the first couple of decades of the 20th century were to send a “message”.
The monument at UNC was built to honor the near 300 students and faculty that were killed in the Civil War.
The young men who fought in the war were old men dying off in this time frame, they were trying to honor them.

If a state leaves because the United States forms an Army to march on states performing a legal act of secession. They didn’t leave because of slavery, they left because the US Govt had lost its way.

 

[JumperJack]

Yep, no one was arguing that. And I agree, the North fought to preserve the Union, with our without slavery. I have always said, at least in this thread, that overarching reason the South seceded, then later fought, was to maintain slavery, which I think is rather sh*tty motive for both responses by the South, and why I have zero qualms of removing statues that celebrate that motive and cause.

The problem is that it’s a fallacy to claim you know what those statues represent. You can find the keynote address for some dedications that are about racial supremacy. But to the families of the dead who were alive when they were dedicated, they had multiple meanings, USUALLY about revering sacrifice in defending their non-slaveholding homes from literal attack.

Your logic gives us no reason to ever honor the past. Anybody’s past. None of those who lived then can ever meet the ever changing values of the present, so what does that leave us with? By your logic there should be no memorial to anything, anywhere, before today.

This week a driver had his sponsorship pulled because of something his dad said before he was born. There is a direct connection between such ludicrous logic and what you are on here saying in this thread.

 

[IdaCat]

I can't keep up. What/who are you leftist PC religious fanatics tearing down, banning, burning, rewriting, silencing, or destroying today? You deluded idiots are a disease plaguing the planet. Modern liberals = The American Taliban.